For those that do not agree with people like Richard Dawkins:
https://theconversation.com/never-mind- ... link-35409
https://theconversation.com/never-mind- ... link-35409
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
jaa said:Thanks again for the link!
Could you explain how this contradicts Dawkins? I have a suspicion this article may be playing splashing selfish gene language around to generate more hits.
arien said:Neodarwinism is not coherent. It cannot account for basic categories such as 'truth', 'falsity' or 'reason' which are necessary for the theory to obtain. If it were the case that we are the product of a blind algorithm, we would have no guarantee that our own capacity to reason was actually reliable or that 'truth' was a meaningful term; we could never be certain that such intellectual capacities needed to be reliable for our survival in the past. Thus, to say that 'neodarwiniism is true' is incoherent, for the truth of such a statement calls into question the speaker's and the audience's own capacity for reasoning and the meaning of the term 'truth'. As such, neodarwinism attempts to destroy truth. I quite suspect that this is why the Huxleys promoted it to begin with.
This analysis can be extended by considering other metaphysical issues such as causality or identity-through-time which are required for the theory to be true, but which cannot be accounted for by the theory.
haidut said:jaa said:Thanks again for the link!
Could you explain how this contradicts Dawkins? I have a suspicion this article may be playing splashing selfish gene language around to generate more hits.
From the article:
"...We challenge the “selfish gene” concept, proposing instead that if a cellular component is “selfish” it must be ribosomes. Cells – and DNA itself – evolved, we argue, to optimise the functioning of ribosomes. That upends everything we think we know about the evolution of cellular life and ribosomes themselves."
"...The resting position of DNA is very tightly curled up with its genes inaccessible. Resting DNA is so stable that it can protect its genes for 10,000 years or more, allowing scientists to recover DNA from frozen mammoths. This is not a molecule yearning to disperse its genes, but one that wants to conserve them by remaining curled up in a knot."
So, I guess what they are saying is that IF there is a cell component that is selfish, it is not DNA but the ribosomes which translate information from RNA into proteins.
jaa said:arien,
I don't think you sound coherent. That may be due my ignorance or you trying to sound like a smarty pants. If you don't mind, please explain what you mean by each sentence in language that doesn't assume everyone is on the same page as you.